Talk:Henry Winkler/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 02:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

First round from Vaticidalprophet

This is an article on a major pop-cultural figure that would be eligible for the rare honour of the Million Award. Accordingly, it's important we get it right. This is good work, but in my "reading a long article before picking it up to decide if I want to review" process, a number of minor but noticeable style issues jumped out at me; I'd like to get those worked out before we dig into the substance. There are recurring issues with reference order throughout the article (e.g. in the family history section alone, there's German Jews who were living in Berlin[3][2], disguising them as a box of chocolates.[5][1], (and was eventually taken away by the Nazis).[6][1], and shared this story on a season 2 episode of Better Late Than Never.[6][1][8]), and copious insertion of information within parentheses -- almost half the sentences in the article include parenthetical information. In general, information in parentheses should be either incorporated into the sentence naturally, restructed into a footnote, or omitted entirely as trivia; it may be worth going through the article with a stricter eye on these. I've studied the lead and the first two sections most thoroughly (it's a long article!), but most of what's parenthesized in those seems incorporatable into the sentence without them. Vaticidalprophet 02:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC) I appreciate the feedback. I'm not certain I entirely understand what you are asking me to do, but over the next day or so, I'll try to trim the article a bit and incorporate info in the parentheses.-Classicfilms (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Ok, I've re-ordered the references and trimmed the article. I believe I caught all of the references and parentheses, but it's always helpful to have another set of eyes take a look. Let me know what else I can do to move the article forward. Thanks for your help!-Classicfilms (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Adding to my comment above. I realize that the article is now at a different length than when you wrote your comment above. I just wanted to state that the current size of the article (now after the edits I just made) is 132,206 (bytes): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Winkler&action=info I checked Wikipedia:GACR and did not see length as part of "The Six Good Article Criteria." Without getting too much into Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF, I did take a look at a few existing GAs. Meryl Streep is currently at 183,606 (bytes) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meryl_Streep&action=info and Quentin Tarantino is currently at 140,511 (bytes): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quentin_Tarantino&action=info -Classicfilms (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Oh yeah, to be clear, don't worry too much about the length as part of the GA approval itself. The article is currently about 7000 words long prose size (the important measurement, as raw byte size is impacted by images, templates, etc), which is comfortably within acceptable bounds -- just at the longer end of it, which means a review will take a bit longer for us to complete than for a shorter article. That said, length is often treated as kind of an informal criterion -- I've reviewed and passed articles much longer than this one, but some editors are very strict about WP:SIZERULE and I've seen lengths much above 10,000 words be used as part of justification for a fail. (I disagree with that, but as I said, it's subjective.) I'll be coming around to start going section-by-section in...probably the next few days -- this isn't the only article I'm reviewing right now, and while the length isn't a GA problem per se it's a "it takes longer to read and review as a practical matter than a short article would" one, but I'm aiming my best to get to everyone as promptly as possible. Vaticidalprophet 02:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Wonderful, I really appreciate your clarification of length. One reason I like to put articles through a GA review is the added benefit of having at least one other editor contribute to its development. I'm also open to suggestions for further trimming if it improves the article - sometimes you need a second set of eyes (at least) to think about a section in a new way.So - I appreciate your points, and also the amount of time each review you are working through will take. As it turns out, this is a very busy week for me in RL, so I'm in no hurry to work on it. I just didn't want to miss the GA timetable. Thanks!-Classicfilms (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Starting to go through the article! I'm currently in an awkward position with regards to computer access, but I'm doing my best. Lead He is the recipient of a number of accolades, including winning [...] The fact he won them is included in 'recipient of', so the word 'winning' isn't necessary. It may be worth linking "typecast" to Typecasting. Winkler has been honored both for his role as "The Fonz," -- should be logical quotation Is "Bill Rosendahl Public Service Award for Contributions to the Public Good" supposed to be presented like that, as a full proper noun with italics? It's a very long title, and I don't think we tend to italicize such awards. I'm not sure for that matter that the award is notable enough to mention in the lead -- we have an article for Bill Rosendahl, but not for the award. (Should we?)  Done. As for the Bill Rosendahl award, I feel it is notable and should be listed in awards (which it is). However, for the sake of time, I took it out of the lead. It should be added to the Roshendahl article, but that is a project for another time.-Classicfilms (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Family history (1939–1945) Winkler's father's business was mentioned in one of the parenthesized statements that got cut. This is fine, but nevertheless it might be worth specifying his career a little more precisely than "businessman" in his introduction. Is the piped link to The Holocaust in Germany necessary? He thus arranged to take his wife on a six-week-long business trip to the United States.[5][1] -- ref order  Done. Regarding the piped link, here are the changes that I made: I shortened the link to "they were no longer safe"- still to The Holocaust in Germany. I do feel the WL is needed, as it is specific to their experience. However, I took out the broader link for "the Holocaust" at the bottom of the paragraph.-Classicfilms (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Early life and education (1945–1970) He was named after both his Uncle Helmut -- in which sense? To an Anglophone reader, it's not clear how "Helmut" gets to either "Henry" or "Franklin", so it would be worth making this a little clearer. Although his family did not keep kosher, Winkler was raised in the traditions of Conservative Judaism,[9] has an older sister named Beatrice,[7][9][11] and is a cousin of actor Richard Belzer.[12] The part about his relatives seems to be a separate clause to his religious background, so would be worth splitting into two sentences. During his childhood, Winkler and his family spent their summers at Lake Mahopac, New York,[13][14][1] -- ref order over his struggles with schoolwork.[4][1][18][19] -- ref order he was not allowed to attend graduation, as he had to repeat Geometry for the fourth time during summer school While "Geometry" as a school subject tends to be capitalized by the school itself, I don't believe that's Wikipedia's house style. in 1978, Emerson awarded him an honorary DHL Would be worth spelling out this acronym. In addition, over two decades later would flow better without "In addition".  Done. See below. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Early comments, more to come. Hope the list doesn't seem too dense -- this is good work. Vaticidalprophet 00:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC) I just happened to take a look and saw that you have started the review. No worries re: computer access. I'm multitasking in RL at the moment, so it's better for me if the review comes in stages like this. Great suggestions! I will try to get through this list in the next day or two. -Classicfilms (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC) And just because I was curious about the "name" comment - in interviews Winkler frequently just states that he his first name (Henry) is a tribute to his uncle Helmut. However, you make a fair point. So I found this article which offers a more detailed connection. Maybe it's worth integrating into the sentence: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/philboas/2019/02/26/henry-winkler-fonzie-parents-escaped-holocaust-nazi-germany/2986614002/ "The “H” in Henry has meaning, said Winkler. It stands for his Uncle Helmut, another German Jew who was eager to escape Hitler's violent regime." -Classicfilms (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC) You are a good editor - these are great suggestions. I used the article above to modify the sentence about his name - let me know if you have additional thoughts about how to frame these points. As for reference order, I came across an interesting bug in the wiki software. In regular "read" mode, I also saw that the references were out of order after you pointed it out. However, once I clicked on "edit" mode for both the section and later when I tried "edit" for the full article, the footnotes were not out of order. So I fixed them in "source" mode. Your timeline for editing works with my general schedule - so just get the edit changes to me when you can gain access to a computer. I'll check in once a day. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Career I should have more consistent computer access now :) I was reading through this article on my phone in the meantime, which brought to my attention some things about this section as a whole that are less obvious on desktop and worth considering before we start reviewing subsection-by-subsection. This is a very long section with a lot of subsections, which makes it difficult to navigate for mobile readers -- who are almost 80% of the readers of this article. (See full pageview stats here where the article gets about 116k views a month, and desktop-only stats here where it gets about 25k. The rest are mobile readers.) You can take a look at the article on a phone, or if that's not accessible for any reason use this link on a desktop (which doesn't quite get it across -- on mobile, all the section headers are collapsed by default -- but if you close the sections you'll see an idea). Because the headers are collapsed on mobile, that means the entire "Career" section works as a single section for mobile readers, and it's much harder than for desktop readers for them to navigate to a specific part (links to individual subsections don't work on mobile). This means that if someone on mobile only wants to read a single subsection (such as his work on Happy Days or with the Hank Zipzer books), it's very hard for them to find. I'd recommend breaking this section up into a few smaller subsections so the 80% of readers on mobile can navigate it more easily. Fortunately, you have some natural section breaks already. The 1970-1973, 1973-1984, 1984-2003, and 2003-present sections, which are all currently separate or semi-separate subsections, could be restructured into individual section headers and each subsection in them moved up a level accordingly. This would make the article a lot easier to read on mobile, or any other format where someone is accessing the mobile site and its collapsed-by-default section headers. Vaticidalprophet 01:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Great! Glad to hear that you were able to resolve computer issues... All valid points re: formatting of the career section. I made some basic changes which for now resolve the mobile phone access issues. However, I'm not really wild about all of the header titles. So I'm open to suggestions. Also if you have additional organizational ideas let me know - maybe other sections can be combined. Yale Drama and Yale Rep need to be separate sections, since Yale Rep marked the beginning of his career. There are other sections that maybe could be defined differently, usually collections of works that fit a time period, but not a specific work such as "Happy Days." The Hank Zipzer tv series should be tied to the books, but he had multiple roles (producer, actor, and writer as they were based on the books). So I'd be open to ideas regarding how to organize. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC) More ...aaaaa I just realized I left this hanging for a couple weeks. Sorry! I don't have any nitpicks for "Early career", although within the Happy Days section I'm inclined to draw your eye to the logical quotation issue. As far as I can tell every quote throughout the article has the full stop/period within rather than outside of quote tags, which is fine for most of them as they're generally quite long, but you have a couple examples where a short quote has that pattern, which comes apart from Wikipedia's house style. This isn't a huge deal, but it caught my eye. (It's probably worth paying attention to other examples in the article.) Otherwise, I don't have more-than-stylistic comments, and I hope to get to the rest of the sections in the next few days. Vaticidalprophet 03:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC) No worries... As for the logical quotation, this is a rule that is specific to the Wikipedia style guide, one that I must admit I am not as familiar with as you are. Just as an fyi, my "mental style" is ruled by the American MLA style guide for this particular issue, as described here: Why do periods and commas go inside quotation marks in MLA style? So, I think it will be more useful if you can make a list of the exact places you would like for me to make this change, as I probably will not notice them as quickly as you do. Cheers, -Classicfilms (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Additional re-org and headers (Note: I added this to the article talk page first, so it didn't get added here. I am thus adding manually). @Vaticidalprophet: - I just made some tweaks to headers, sub-headers, and the overall structure of the career section. Take a look and let me know what you think. I'm open to suggestions. I also made changes to the Adam Sandler section.-Classicfilms (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC) Brief comment from Aza24 I looked at the Parks and Recreation page, and it seems that Winkler is not in the main cast, but rather a celebrity appearance. Now, I don't know how many episodes he was in, but it seems a very minor part of his career, so I question its inclusion in the lead, especially the lead's first paragraph! Aza24 (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC) Hi Aza24, thank you so much for the feedback! According to IMDB, he appeared 8 times between 2013-2015. I initially included it because during interviews, he is sometimes asked about this role. However, it is not a vital fact to include in the introduction, so I removed it. In addition, the GA review is in need of a new reviewer (see the post below this one). I'm wondering, perhaps, if you might be interested? Again, thank you for the feedback. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Hi Classicfilms, I would be happy to help yourself and VP. I probably won't be able to review until Saturday, so if that's okay with you, then let me know. BlueMoonset, is there somewhere I should list my name formally? No worries if not, just wasn't sure. Aza24 (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Hi Aza24, yes Saturday is fine and Thank You!! I really appreciate it. I actually have a busy workweek, so spreading out a GA review is better for me. I tend to check at least once a day. BlueMoonset, let us know how to proceed. Thanks to you both, -Classicfilms (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Aza24, there isn't a place to list your name formally, and it isn't necessary. What's typically the case in this situation is that the reviewer taking over starts a new section, noting they're taking over the review, and proceeds from there. Thank you so much for taking this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Second opinion requested in the hopes of finding reviewer to take over Regrettably, Vaticidalprophet will not be able to continue the review. The nomination status has been changed to "2nd opinion" in the hopes of finding a new reviewer to take over the review. Thank you to whoever steps up. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Note: Aza24 has agreed above to take on this review. I am removing the second opinion request. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Aza24

Looking now. Aza24 (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Fantastic feedback, thank you! I will start working on this either Sunday night or sometime on Monday. So no rush on your part.-Classicfilms (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Now done with the comments below. I know there is now a lot to review. We can work on it again over next weekend if you like.-Classicfilms (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

Being hard on the lead since most readers will (unfortunately) not read further)

That's great. Let's see if I can get a bit done this evening...-Classicfilms (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Anything that "Raleigh Supercon" can be linked to in the image caption? Not sure what it is (GalaxyCon?)
• The "Adam Sandler's" in "Adam Sandler's The Waterboy" feels a bit out of place, usually lead actors aren't referred to possessively with their work like that, if anything it would be the director (e.g. "Frank Coraci's The Waterboy") but since you're not doing this for other media here, I would advise removal
• I would unlike "Gene Cousineau" as well, it just goes to a single sentence in the target article and its best to avoid a WP:Sea of blue anyways
• "won a small role" "Won" is a bit unusual imo, I suppose auditions are 'competitions' of sorts, but I've never heard of winning use in this way, perhaps just 'casted'/'cast'?
• maybe 'Bronze Fonz statue' instead? Usually its best to give enough context that the reader need not click the link to understand what's being referred to

• • The above is  Done.-Classicfilms (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Family history

• Consider linking née
• findagrave.com is not a reliable source (it is user-inputed information for the most part) so these sources almost certainly need to substituted or removed. Try here (accessible through the archive instead)
• the link to the holocaust article in "they were no longer safe" is a bit odd, and generally 'easter egg' links are discouraged. If the information is important, it might more prominently included, e.g. By 1939, rising hostilities against Jews meant..." the "knew that it was time." link also feels out of place
• Since the in the chronology of the article Winkler hasn't even been born yet, the "Almost 80 years after his parents had left Germany," comes as a big surprise. Maybe it would be better in the personal life section?

• • The above is  Done-Classicfilms (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Early life

• Is there a reason to have three references to support his older sister named Bernice... I mean surely her existence is not that controversial :)
• The order of ideas in the "Difficulties in school" feels unnatural, that is, one would expect the schools Winkler went to to be interested, and then his experience at them discussed, whereas right now the order is the opposite
• The "You want so badly to be able to" sits mainly next to the "Emerson College (1963–1967)" section on my screen, but it applies more readily to the "difficulties in school" one. Could it perhaps be moved to the top of that section? Though see the below as well
• Since you just used a quote box pretty recently, you might consider moving one of them to an inline quotation, such as at Orlando Gibbons#Late career ("On the 17th of May, Orlando Gibbons, one ...")

I changed it to a blockquote. Check to see if you think it works, or if you have more suggestions.-Classicfilms (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Consider linking "fraternity"
• The linking in the "Yale School of Drama (1967–1970)" section needs another look-over; a few places, such as The Bacchae, are not linked at all (though some, such as The Rhesus Umbrella, do not have articles), while others such as Don Juan, link to the character's page, rather than a play. (The correct play for the latter is most likely The Trickster of Seville and the Stone Guest)
• Considering linking commedia dell’arte
• The link to "Mork put a spell on the Fonz", is again somewhat unexpected, and its not actually clear which episode is being referred to

 Done-Classicfilms (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Early career

• Julian the Hospitaler is an unexpected link as well (we would expect the play, not the person)
• The "He also performed in Two by Brecht..." sentence is phrased oddly. Is it not known which plays specifically were performed when? If it is, I would put couple their names with the dates
• consider linking cold reading to Cold reading (theatrical)

 Done-Classicfilms (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Happy Days...

• The "Happy Days and additional roles (1973–1984)" section as a whole is rather choppy. Could any of these small paragraphs at the beginning be combined?

I moved some of the text to the section above (and changed the name of the section). Let me know if that works. I also rewrote the first paragraph. Let me know how the whole section now works.

• I'm not sure what "as the only one still standing" means, exactly, but it seems like maybe a bit un-encyclopedic
• "masked the difficulties he had " is an unnatural link
• "Winkler realized that he was as well" doesn't make sense—it sounds like Winkler realized that he was diagnosed with dyslexia as well, but one can't "realize a diagnosis"

I rewrote the entire Dyslexia section. Let me know if it reads better, or if you have further suggestions.-Classicfilms (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• having "in 1979. In 1979" does not read very well
• The entire "In television, he was..." paragraph needs some copy editing. Almost every since begins with "In [year],..." creating a very unnatural and choppy structure

I rewrote this section. Let me know if you have further suggestions.

• For all of the above, now  DoneClassicfilms (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

After Happy Days

• The line beginning with "The company was ..." has a lot of commas, can this be smoothed out at all?
  •  Done-Classicfilms (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• More later... Aza24 (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Thank you for your work thus far! I will plan to finish the review this weekend, and formally put the article on hold. Aza24 (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh sure, take your time. There is still quite a bit to cover. Thanks for your help!-Classicfilms (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Planning on finishing this in the next few hours, by the way. Aza24 (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Perfect! I will get started right now, thank you!-Classicfilms (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Might be good to describe MacGyver, like "MacGyver tv series" or something

 Done-Classicfilms (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Is there a reason Michael Tucker isn't linked?

Thank you for catching an extreme oversight on my part (and I'm a big LA Law fan too...).  Done-Classicfilms (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• The "main article" hat notes in the 'After Happy Days (1984–2003)' section don't really fit imo—the 'main article' in this context would be an article on Winkler's work with John Ritter, for example. Perhaps {{further}} is more appropriate here

 Done-Classicfilms (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Might change up "good reviews" the second time to avoid redundant word choice? "positive reviews"?

 DoneClassicfilms (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• as the last comment illustrates, I am finding only minor things and less and less to comment on as I read on. I think the article is largely satisfactory as it stands. Putting on formal hold. Aza24 (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Great! I have completed all of the suggestions above. Is there anything else I need to do? Thank you! -Classicfilms (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I think you're good. Imo, my comments had been more FA standard than GA, and I think the article certainly meets the GA requirements. Passing now, congrats! Aza24 (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you so much for taking this on! Cheers, -Classicfilms (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)